Who wants to talk about propulsion of a interstellar space ship? No one. Really people.

Opening Argument

Nuclear power, Solar sails, antimatter, Black holes. Get ready to get confused or if no one wants to talk about it bored cause we are diving int to astrophysics where we talk about stuff we know nothing about.

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

Technically, this is a logical paradox, though minor. If I say "I don't want to talk about spaceships", I've just mentioned spaceships, and contradicted myself. But I won't speak of it in the future until this discussion gets more attention. Not really interested in rocket science.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Rocket science! Does solar sails and propulsion throu black hole hoking radiation sound like rocket science. Does antimatter and nuclear fusion sound like rocket science. DOES COMBUSTION SOUND LIKE ROCKET SCIENCE! Will goof because that one should.

What about propulsion and or combustion in a vacuum? Impossible. Sci-fi.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Solar sails use the solar winds or super and I am taking massive lasers to move. Combustion can happen with fuel and oxygen as long as you bring them both with you. Antimatter and matter are all that is needed for that kind of propulsion. Black holes are all you need for that propulsion. You don't need to be surrounded in air for any of the propulsion I mentioned. And space being a vacuum is debatable. It is not the case in many theory about the universe. : )

Ampersand As efficient as nuclear propulsion my be, even through it is closer to current technology, it is not as efficient as antimatter matter reactions which release like all the energy stored in the atom compared to nuclear propulsion less then 1%. Black hole are also more efficient. Combustion for Interstellar travel is just not realistic.

Gun powder contains it's own oxidant, and experimentation shows that it doesn't combust in a vacuum.

"I'm assuming that's what your issue with combustion is. No idea why you are against propulsion. If anything it's easier in space as you don't have to worry about slowing down."

Cars push off the road, boats push off of water, and planes push off the air. You can't push off of a vacuum. Anyone who applies basic logic will understand.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

@NopeSee, there's a big difference between saying what will happen hypothetically, and SHOWING that something can't happen. In an infinitely expanding vacuum, the energy would be lost immediately, expanding with the rest of the universe, and the rocket would remain stationary. Here's an engineer with the details, learn something.

Pseudoscience: noun; a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.